Feinstein bill is interesting. The main thing I oppose the greatest is the national registry. Good luck getting me to sign up for that.

Why? Yeah, I've heard the argument that it's the first step in taking all guns away, but there's really no evidence of that.

Here in CA, if you want to sell someone your old shotgun in California, before the deal can be closed, both parties must take the firearm and documentation for the transaction to a federally licensed dealer. I haven't heard of anybody who's been deprived of their right to bear arms unless they have a criminal background. That part seemed to have worked pretty well. My own guns are duly registered (they're just handguns) and nobody's tried to take those from me. I've registered my cars forever and no one tries to take those either. Why would this national registry be different?

Given how much more common cars are on the planet, and how necessary they are economically in both production and use, comparisons to guns regarding potential bans is not particularly valid.

But taking the question of registration being a prelude to a complete ban more seriously, is there a US Senator that has stated "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it" about cars? Actually, I can think of three US Senators (Durbin, Schumer, and Lautenberg) and a VP that would no doubt agree with Feinstein. And we've seen complete bans introduced in other countries (notably England and Australia) with at least vaguely similar cultures to the US.

So if you consider a ban as a possibility, you then look at what would do the most to make a ban more effective, and universal registration fits that bill. A person that is on record as owning a firearm, and facing criminal charges for either possession OR for not reporting the gun as lost or stolen would be far more likely to voluntarily turn it in than someone that is on record as having purchased firearms but not with the individual firearms' serial numbers listed by their name on a federal database.

Actually, I don't think a ban is possible given the 2nd Amendment. The comparison to other countries isn't particularly valid because the right to bear arms isn't in their Constitution. And there are a whole lot of hoops to go through before a Constitutional Amendment can go into effect.

Bottom line, I believe in our system of government. We decide how we want our country to be via ballots, not bullets. True, we've defended our identity where the rule of law reigns supreme with bullets, but we've never lost sight of what we're about. We've been through invasion (War of 1812), Civil War, 2 World Wars, a Great Depression, assassinations not only of presidents but of candidates, riots, and a host of other troubles. And through it all, we've never had an overthrow of the government or let an administration in power subvert who we are. We have always held our elections on schedule and transferred power peacefully. People have died to make that happen.

Even when we've made Amendments that didn't work, we've reversed them (see Prohibition). What gets me is that a lot of people who proclaim themselves patriots seem to have a lot less faith in their country than I do. I honestly don't get it.

Many years ago I worked in a security-sensitive position designing systems for national security. I had to provide all sorts of VERY personal information to the government and was investigated very thoroughly. Some of that included confessing to some federal crimes (yes, I inhaled at one time). But you know what, hundreds of thousands of people go through the same process every year. And you know what is not on the forms? Anything about guns. It could be. They ask about all sorts of bizarre things - sexual partners, acts, preferences, drug use, money and spending habits, travel, and much more. They asked how I felt about killing people, whether I objected to carrying a gun to work, but never if I owned any.

You give up many of your constitutional rights going through that process. But the reality is that the government does not care about your guns unless you are a criminal. All this crap about registration being a prelude to confiscation and needing guns to restrain a tyrannical government is just that - a bunch of crap. The NRA and other groups are using fear and ignorance to rally stupid Americans into thinking that kind of thing might happen. It won't.

Registering your guns is not going to lead to confiscation.

You have no right to take up arms against the government or even to discuss the notion. Doing so is treason and rightfully makes you eligible for execution. Move on. That argument is not helping your cause one bit.

In my opinion gun control simply will not work for essentially the same reason that immigration laws will never work, drug laws don't, prohibition didn't, and airport security is a joke. The government does not have the resources to do anything like that effectively and efficiently. But all these red herring fears being raised make the NRA and its supporters look like a bunch of paranoid idiots. And we really don't want guns in the hands of paranoid crazies...so where does that lead us?

Yeah, and what makes things like that so ridiculous to those of us who have first hand experience working with and for the government is that the sheer inefficiency and ineptitude make conspiracies like that impossible to play out. There are plenty of things the government tries really hard to keep secret that we all find out about rather quickly. There is just no way something like that could be carried out even if there were an agenda! They are giving the politicos way too much credit.

Because their actions have proven that they would like to disarm the American People. Once they have a national registry then they will know where every firearm is when they finally get their way.... then they just have to go get them. Dont think it will just stop with AR's. It wont.... then it will move to all semi autos, then to hand guns, then shot guns... then well will be just like the Brits. Didn't we fight a war to loose that kind of Tyrany?

_________________I can not dwell over that to which I have no control...

Feinstein bill is interesting. The main thing I oppose the greatest is the national registry. Good luck getting me to sign up for that.

Why? Yeah, I've heard the argument that it's the first step in taking all guns away, but there's really no evidence of that.

Here in CA, if you want to sell someone your old shotgun in California, before the deal can be closed, both parties must take the firearm and documentation for the transaction to a federally licensed dealer. I haven't heard of anybody who's been deprived of their right to bear arms unless they have a criminal background. That part seemed to have worked pretty well. My own guns are duly registered (they're just handguns) and nobody's tried to take those from me. I've registered my cars forever and no one tries to take those either. Why would this national registry be different?

Since you brought up california, I'll share my sentiments about the state. It could fall into the ocean and I could care less. And I don't really care what the california laws are.

Second, I'll preface the rest of comments by saying, I'm not here to try and persuade anyone in to my line of thinking. I was asked a question, and I am simply responding. If you disagree with me, great. If you agree with me, great. I'm not asking you to understand, I'm just giving you an answer to your question.

Onto why I don't like a gun registry. 1) It's the same reason I don't like the Census. I feel it is none of their business if I own a gun, what kind of gun it is and how many bullets it holds. In a lot of ways, I'm a nutjob and I do believe the gubimint would use this information to discriminate against people. 2) I feel they will eventually have a gun owner's tax, and if I'm not on their stupid registry, they can't tax me (yes, I would evade that tax). 3) didn't a newspaper recently get a hold of a registry of gun owners? While I don't have any definitive proof, my gut tells many were robbed b/c of it. I own multiple guns on the feinstein list of no-no's, all I want are those guns being illegal and my name listed on a registry as owning them. 4) I wear a tin-foil hat. My dream retirement is having a long gravel driveway where on one end s a gate with a 'no trespassing' sign and the other I sit in a rocking chair on the porch all day sipping lemonade and holding my benelli shotgun with one finger on the trigger.

At end of the day, I have all the guns I need. And I'll never put my name on a registry for owning a gun.

Amen! But you forgot the sign about half way up the driveway. If you can read this... You're in range!

_________________I can not dwell over that to which I have no control...

Actually, I don't think a ban is possible given the 2nd Amendment. The comparison to other countries isn't particularly valid because the right to bear arms isn't in their Constitution. And there are a whole lot of hoops to go through before a Constitutional Amendment can go into effect.

Show me the Constitutional Amendment that states you give up your right to a trial to prove your guilt. Last time I checked there isn't one. However the NDAA plainly states that you can be hold indefinitely without a trial. This violates the 6th Amendment... but yet they still do it. Do you really think they give a crap about the 2nd if they are willing to violate the 6th?

Quote:

Bottom line, I believe in our system of government. We decide how we want our country to be via ballots, not bullets. True, we've defended our identity where the rule of law reigns supreme with bullets, but we've never lost sight of what we're about. We've been through invasion (War of 1812), Civil War, 2 World Wars, a Great Depression, assassinations not only of presidents but of candidates, riots, and a host of other troubles. And through it all, we've never had an overthrow of the government or let an administration in power subvert who we are. We have always held our elections on schedule and transferred power peacefully. People have died to make that happen.

Never before has the government attempted to take so much away from the people... and the people are getting fed up. I read an article today where folks (law enforcement included) are getting ready to turn their nose up at the new NY gun ban. Their mindset is... come get em, but you better bring help.

Quote:

Even when we've made Amendments that didn't work, we've reversed them (see Prohibition). What gets me is that a lot of people who proclaim themselves patriots seem to have a lot less faith in their country than I do. I honestly don't get it.

Because this is not the same country that many of Americans have died to defend. The powers that be are hell bent on destroying this country. It doesn't matter if you wanted Obummer or Romney... its the same coin just a different side. Until we get away from a two party system the people will always suffer. The folks that call themselves patriots are refering to a country that was governed by the United States Constitution, not the current govt that is governed by greed. This used to be a great country... sadly it isn't anymore.

_________________I can not dwell over that to which I have no control...

Many years ago I worked in a security-sensitive position designing systems for national security. I had to provide all sorts of VERY personal information to the government and was investigated very thoroughly. Some of that included confessing to some federal crimes (yes, I inhaled at one time). But you know what, hundreds of thousands of people go through the same process every year. And you know what is not on the forms? Anything about guns. It could be. They ask about all sorts of bizarre things - sexual partners, acts, preferences, drug use, money and spending habits, travel, and much more. They asked how I felt about killing people, whether I objected to carrying a gun to work, but never if I owned any.

You give up many of your constitutional rights going through that process. But the reality is that the government does not care about your guns unless you are a criminal. All this crap about registration being a prelude to confiscation and needing guns to restrain a tyrannical government is just that - a bunch of crap. The NRA and other groups are using fear and ignorance to rally stupid Americans into thinking that kind of thing might happen. It won't.

Registering your guns is not going to lead to confiscation.

You have no right to take up arms against the government or even to discuss the notion. Doing so is treason and rightfully makes you eligible for execution. Move on. That argument is not helping your cause one bit.

In my opinion gun control simply will not work for essentially the same reason that immigration laws will never work, drug laws don't, prohibition didn't, and airport security is a joke. The government does not have the resources to do anything like that effectively and efficiently. But all these red herring fears being raised make the NRA and its supporters look like a bunch of paranoid idiots. And we really don't want guns in the hands of paranoid crazies...so where does that lead us?

spoken like a true sheep.

_________________I can not dwell over that to which I have no control...

Actually, I don't think a ban is possible given the 2nd Amendment. The comparison to other countries isn't particularly valid because the right to bear arms isn't in their Constitution. And there are a whole lot of hoops to go through before a Constitutional Amendment can go into effect.

Show me the Constitutional Amendment that states you give up your right to a trial to prove your guilt. Last time I checked there isn't one. However the NDAA plainly states that you can be hold indefinitely without a trial. This violates the 6th Amendment... but yet they still do it. Do you really think they give a crap about the 2nd if they are willing to violate the 6th?

Wikipedia wrote:

Actually, the detention sections of the NDAA begin by "affirm[ing]" that the authority of the President under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), a joint resolution passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, includes the power to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners", and anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]". The text authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin", or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity".Addressing previous conflicts with the Obama Administration regarding the wording of the Senate text, the Senate-House compromise text, in sub-section 1021(d), also affirms that nothing in the Act "is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force". The final version of the bill also provides, in sub-section(e), that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." As reflected in Senate debate over the bill, there is a great deal of controversy over the status of existing law.

Do you honestly believe that we didn't do similar things against British sympathizers in the War of 1812 or to Confederate sympathizers in the Civil War? Even in if they were American citizens? Don't forget, Lincoln and Grant personally suspended habeus corpus during that time. And yet the Republic persists, a century and a half later.

And yes, I'm aware that Michigan has passed a block against any state cooperation with federal officials who wish to detain Americans under sections 1021 and 1022.

Interestingly enough, the NDAA has so far passed all legal challenges. And lest you believe that the Supreme Court is in the pocket of the Administration, just this past week, the Court has ruled Obama's recess appointments Unconstitutional. That's the way the Constitution works: a system of checks and balances. No doubt any weapons ban will be challenged in court. And no doubt, the Supreme Court will weigh in. If you have believe in the Constitution, you have to believe in all of it, not just one or two sentences. You can't cherry-pick the parts you like to defend.

N2Deep wrote:

VinTek wrote:

Bottom line, I believe in our system of government. We decide how we want our country to be via ballots, not bullets. True, we've defended our identity where the rule of law reigns supreme with bullets, but we've never lost sight of what we're about. We've been through invasion (War of 1812), Civil War, 2 World Wars, a Great Depression, assassinations not only of presidents but of candidates, riots, and a host of other troubles. And through it all, we've never had an overthrow of the government or let an administration in power subvert who we are. We have always held our elections on schedule and transferred power peacefully. People have died to make that happen.

Never before has the government attempted to take so much away from the people... and the people are getting fed up. I read an article today where folks (law enforcement included) are getting ready to turn their nose up at the new NY gun ban. Their mindset is... come get em, but you better bring help.

That's reckless talk. I talk and work with people whose job it is to put themselves in harm's way (I work on a military program). While there are some who doubtless would sympathize with your view, the vast majority would have to stand against you. You'd be outmanned and outgunned. And the thing is, I don't see the point. Shouldn't we supposed to be working together to make our country a better place instead of taking up arms against each other?

N2Deep wrote:

Because this is not the same country that many of Americans have died to defend. The powers that be are hell bent on destroying this country. It doesn't matter if you wanted Obummer or Romney... its the same coin just a different side. Until we get away from a two party system the people will always suffer. The folks that call themselves patriots are refering to a country that was governed by the United States Constitution, not the current govt that is governed by greed. This used to be a great country... sadly it isn't anymore.

Now that's just extremist. Since when have we not been a 2-party system? Since when has a 3rd party ever been anything but a spoiler? If you believe that things are going to hell, then start a 3rd party! Work within the system instead of trying to take up arms against it! The country was founded because we had taxation without representation. Well, you have representation! And you choose your representatives via the ballot box. You can't call yourselves patriots because you defend one sentence in the Constitution and then throw the rest of the Constitution under the bus. You can't call yourself a patriot because of 1 sentence and then call anyone who defends the rest of the document a sheep. It just doesn't hold water.

You can't call yourselves patriots because you defend one sentence in the Constitution and then throw the rest of the Constitution under the bus. You can't call yourself a patriot because of 1 sentence and then call anyone who defends the rest of the document a sheep. It just doesn't hold water.

Would you like some salt to go with the foot you just stuck in your mouth?

You are assuming that I only defend one or two sentences of the constitution... .whereas it's only one or two sentences that we have actually talked about. You do know that assumption is the mother of all f*** ups right?

As for Wikipedia... anyone can change that site to say anything they want. I don't put much stock in what Wikipedia wrote

_________________I can not dwell over that to which I have no control...

You can't call yourselves patriots because you defend one sentence in the Constitution and then throw the rest of the Constitution under the bus. You can't call yourself a patriot because of 1 sentence and then call anyone who defends the rest of the document a sheep. It just doesn't hold water.

Would you like some salt to go with the foot you just stuck in your mouth?

You are assuming that I only defend one or two sentences of the constitution... .whereas it's only one or two sentences that we have actually talked about. You do know that assumption is the mother of all f*** ups right?

As for Wikipedia... anyone can change that site to say anything they want. I don't put much stock in what Wikipedia wrote

Okay, let's start with the Constitution. It's very clear on the government. It calls out the qualifications of the President (Administration), Congress (Legislature) and Supreme Court (Judicial). Are you telling me that the government we now have in place is not in accordance to the dictates of The Constitution and that you have a right to challenge their legitimacy? You're not just challenging laws they pass/uphold. You're threatening force of arms against on laws that are merely proposed, before they've even been debated or voted upon. Show me your legal case. I believe that you're holding the salt shaker, and it looks like you'll be needing it a little longer.

As for Wikipedia, show me that it's wrong in this instance. I'll quote the exact section of the NDAA for you here:

HR 1540 wrote:

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

Interestingly enough, the NDAA has so far passed all legal challenges. And lest you believe that the Supreme Court is in the pocket of the Administration, just this past week, the Court has ruled Obama's recess appointments Unconstitutional.

Just because I'm feeling nitpicky... It was not the Supreme Court. It was the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit

Interestingly enough, the NDAA has so far passed all legal challenges. And lest you believe that the Supreme Court is in the pocket of the Administration, just this past week, the Court has ruled Obama's recess appointments Unconstitutional.

Just because I'm feeling nitpicky... It was not the Supreme Court. It was the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit

I stand corrected. However, I still maintain because of this, the system of checks and balances still works. Maybe not optimally, but it still works.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum